Re: [css3-images] Changing the angles in gradients

On May 18, 2011, at 10:31 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 18, 2011, at 10:06 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> So, we have three choices:
>>>> 
>>>> A) Keep the angles as they are, with 0deg=East and 90deg=North
>>>> B) Switch to screen-coord polar, with 0deg=East and 90deg=South
>>>> C) Switch to bearing angles, with 0deg=North and 90deg=East
>>> 
>>> Based on the frankly overwhelming preference for C expressed in the
>>> various feedback channels, particularly the css3.info poll, I'll
>>> change the spec to use bearing angles.
>> 
>> The css3.info one was asked in a biased way, without presenting the opposing arguments very much at all. Isn't this something for the WG to decide, rather than just you?
> 
> Given that I asked it, I considered it reasonably even.  It presents
> the arguments both for CCW (matches standard polar coords, matches
> tools) and for CW (matches other uses of angles).

It didn't mention the inconsistency of this change with standard representations in leading software that has been that way for decades. It didn't ask the people responding if they had actually used linear-gradient in a site yet (which might have informed their answers). You presented it as a change you were leaning towards making, and as though there would be no problems with making such a radical change now. That's biased. 


> In general, it's the editor's responsibility to make the choices over
> the specs they edit.  Especially for relatively small details like
> this,

Something that radically changes the look of every Web page currently using degrees to indicate direction in a gradient? That changes all the tools that have already been created to create cross-platform CSS3 gradients? That is hardly a small detail. 

> it's definitely not standard practice to make it a WG issue
> first.  If you want to raise an issue, feel free, but the two editors
> of the spec agree on this change, and we've already established in the
> thread that two of the relevant implementors are fine with the change.

Received on Wednesday, 18 May 2011 17:53:31 UTC